Dismissed

Transcoastal Gargo & Shipping v. The Principal Commissioner

Madras HC1 Jun 2016WP/13217/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable, holding that an effective remedy of appeal before CESTAT existed against the Service Tax demand confirming order. The court gave liberty to approach the Tribunal for limitation purposes.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach CESTAT; limitation to be computed excluding Writ Petition pending period.

Transcoastal Gargo & Shipping Vs The Principal Commissioner — Income Tax | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Date : 01.06.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.13217 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.11585 of 2016

¶6

Transcoastal Gargo & Shipping Ltd. 1^st Floor, Catholic Centre Armenian Street Chennai-600 001.

¶7

(Rep. by its Authorized Signatory) ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Principal Commissioner Service Tax-1, Commissionerate Newry Towers No.2054, 12^th Main Road II Avenue, Anna Nagar Chennai-600 040. ... Respondent

¶10

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records culminating in the order dated 29.12.2015 (issued by the Principal Commissioner, Service Tax – 1, Commissionerate, Chennai, in File C.No.IV/09/332/2013-STC Adj) and quash the order. For Petitioner : Mr.Bijesh Thomas

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Principal Commissioner, Service Tax-1, Commissionerate, Chennai, by which the demand of service tax to the tune of Rs.5,72,72,575/- has been confirmed apart from levying interest and imposing penalty.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the petitioner approached this Court and filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.30592 of2015 challenging the order-inoriginal dated 06.02.2015 and the said Writ Petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner to grant an

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

opportunity of personal hearing on 16.12.2015 and after hearing the parties the Commissioner was directed to pass fresh orders. Though opportunity of personal hearing was granted, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present impugned order is a verbatim repetition of the earlier order.

¶17

On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the discussion and the finding commences from paragraph 6.0 and there are certain observations and findings rendered by the Commissioner, while confirming the demand raised on the petitioner in the show cause notice dated 22.10.2013. Therefore, on the ground raised by the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be interfered in a Writ Petition at this stage of the matter since as against the impugned proceedings, the petitioner has effective remedy of filing an appeal before the CESTAT. Hence the Writ Petition cannot be entertained since the appeal remedy is available to the petitioner.

¶18

In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal as against the impugned order. The Tribunal while computing the limitation shall exclude the period during which this Writ Petition was pending before this Court ie., from April 2016 till the receipt of the certified copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mra To: The Principal Commissioner Service Tax-1, Commissionerate Newry Towers No.2054, 12^th Main Road II Avenue, Anna Nagar Chennai-600 040. +1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.29384 +1cc to Mr.Bijesh Thomas, Advocate, S.R.No.29125

¶20

W.P.No.13217 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.11585 of 2016 BVR(CO) CA(23/06/2016)

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Transcoastal Gargo & Shipping v. The Principal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Transcoastal Gargo & Shipping v. The Principal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanniyakumari District General Vs the Labour Officer

R.M. Rajesh Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Sri Venkatram Spinners (P) Vs the Chairman

M.Deepan Vs The Tamil Nadu State Marketing

S.Vetrivel Vs The District Manager

Kaleel Rahman Vs The Commissioner of Customs